It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


How will the Independent voters be allowed to participate in upcoming Primaries?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 11:15 AM
I was reading a CNN article about Newt being the only one standing in the way of Mitt, and they mentioned that many of the upoming primaries are either allowing very limited Independent involvement, or none at all. How does this all work? Are a lot of them not allowing same-day party changes? If so, this really hurts Ron Paul a LOT. Anyone know which ones are doing this, and to what extent?

posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 11:30 AM
I'd personally like to see every state function like Missouri here. I don't identify myself as party when I go to vote our primary. I simply ask for the Repub or Demo ticket (when both have one) and go select. That is fair, I believe. A person can't vote both, but in a year like this, it would be fair that even those who aren't Republican have some say in which of the choices will be their President, should Obama lose.

I can't see where a year like this wouldn't leave a large % feeling pretty burned if Obama does lose and loses to a man they couldn't say a thing about the selection of. If fairness is what we're seeking.....

edit on 12-1-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: typo

posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 11:34 AM
reply to post by Linkamoto

This is one of the more egregious flaws in the US voting system. I, for example, have never joined any of the herds... I have never been associated with any political party.

And in the 40-ish years I've been old enough to vote, I have never been allowed to vote in any primary, because I've never lived in a state that has open primaries.

So basically, unless one is willing to join one of the herds, a truly independent voter in the US gets to pick from the candidates that are in the general election each time.

It's all part of the PTB efforts to suppress voting as much as they can get away with.

posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 11:38 AM
Wow some people just don't get it.

Republicans are voting for a person to lead their party. Why should they allow outside influences determine their nominee?

This would be like the NAACP letting KKK members have a say in who should be their leaders.

If you don't belong to the party, who cares who you think should lead it.

posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 11:42 AM

Originally posted by Carseller4
Wow some people just don't get it.

Some people "get it" just fine. We just think it is a bull # system.

ETA: And actually, they are not picking a leader for the Republican party... that is called the Republican Party Chair, and yes, is a Republican issue and non-Republicans don't really have any input.

However, in these primaries, they are picking a candidate for President of the US... quite a different animal, and non-party members have a big stake in the result.
edit on 12-1-2012 by Open_Minded Skeptic because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:38 PM
reply to post by Carseller4

What don't you get about being able to freely vote for who you want? That's the way it should be. Every state should allow you to change parties if you find someone you fancy, methinks.

posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:47 PM
If you live where the primaries are "closed", simply register with the party with which you wish to participate in the upcoming primary, VOTE in that primary, and then register back as an independent (or whatever) afterwards.

Totally painless, and the "other party" smell washes right off. :-)

new topics

top topics


log in